That prediction is coming true. USA Network’s “Satisfaction” is pushing just such an arrangement. A marriage, where the husband and wife love each other but sleep with other people. That sexual fulfillment and sexy needs are all, and matter the most. Not the family, not lifelong bonds. Just … sex, sex, sex. Love accrues ONLY to those good looking enough to get it through sex, and only as long as the looks last (which is not long). That’s the gay lifestyle in a nutshell. And one that is dominating American and Western life, through the media and the way in particular, White women applaud and endorse that lifestyle.

The results will be a death blow to the White population which depends on love-matches not polygamy nor a gay “sleep with other people” marriage.

﻿Why is state-sanctioned polygamy a problem? The deep reason is that it erodes the ethos of monogamous marriage. Despite the divorce revolution, Americans still take it for granted that marriage means monogamy. The ideal of fidelity may be breached in practice, yet adultery is clearly understood as a transgression against marriage [emphasis added]. Legal polygamy would jeopardize that understanding, and that is why polygamy has historically been treated in the West as an offense against society itself.

In most non-Western cultures, marriage is not a union of freely choosing individuals, but an alliance of family groups. The emotional relationship between husband and wife is attenuated and subordinated to the economic and political interests of extended kin. But in our world of freely choosing individuals, extended families fall away, and love and companionship are the only surviving principles on which families can be built. [emphasis added] From Thomas Aquinas through Richard Posner, almost every serious observer has granted the incompatibility between polygamy and Western companionate marriage.

Where polygamy works, it does so because the husband and his wives are emotionally distant. Even then, jealousy is a constant danger, averted only by strict rules of seniority or parity in the husband’s economic support of his wives. Polygamy is more about those resources than about sex.

Yet in many polygamous societies, even though only 10 or 15 percent of men may actually have multiple wives, there is a widely held belief that men need multiple women. The result is that polygamists are often promiscuous–just not with their own wives. Anthropologist Philip Kilbride reports a Nigerian survey in which, among urban male polygamists, 44 percent said their most recent sexual partners were women other than their wives. For monogamous, married Nigerian men in urban areas, that figure rose to 67 percent. Even though polygamous marriage is less about sex than security, societies that permit polygamy tend to reject the idea of marital fidelity–for everyone, polygamists included.

This sentence from the article stands out:

﻿ Once monogamy is defined out of marriage, it will be next to impossible to educate a new generation in what it takes to keep companionate marriage intact.

Western society is based on the nuclear family. The monogamous marriage. Where love and resources are formed TOGETHER. In a pair. Widespread infedility, the gay norm in marriage, threatens this by all sorts of bastard children and other paramours draining resources away from the family.

In particular, this affects men and women in different ways. A man in such a union, marked by infidelity, runs a massive risk of spending all his money on another man’s child. Men react to this risk by investing none of their resources in children, and spreading their seed. This works well for Africans, who survive through the resources of women only, and for whom a family means a woman alone with two or more children by different fathers. The men compete to be the sexiest singers, dancers, fighters, etc. But contribute, and this is key, no resources to the family or the nation. They just compete to be sexy.

This kind of gay marriage norm, where married couples live together but sleep with others, is not stable. And worse, it destroys male incentives to create wealth. Creating wealth … to attract a mate who will conceive another man’s child? A non-starter. Creating wealth to … raise another man’s child? Another non-starter. Thus gay marriage norms mean single motherhood, far and wide.

HBO’s “Big Love” might have been the first show, and TLC’s “Sister Wives” the second, to push gay marriage norms, but USA’s “Satisfaction” is perhaps the most threatening.

Again, from Virtue Online:

﻿

Even moderate gay advocates of same-sex marriage grant that, at present, gay male relationships are far less monogamous than heterosexual relationships. And there is a persuasive literature on this subject: Gabriel Rotello’s “Sexual Ecology,” for example, offers a documented and powerful account of the behavioral and ideological barriers to monogamy among gay men. The moderate advocates say marriage will change this reality. But they ignore, or downplay, the possibility that gay marriage will change marriage more than it changes the men who marry. Married gay couples will begin to redefine the meaning of marriage for the culture as a whole, in part by removing monogamy as an essential component of marriage. No doubt, the process will be pushed along by cutting-edge movies and TV shows that tout the new “open” marriages being pioneered by gay spouses. In fact, author and gay marriage advocate Richard Mohr has long expressed the hope and expectation that legal gay marriage will succeed in defining monogamy out of marriage.[Emphasis Added]

The series Satisfaction is more threatening, because of who it is aimed at: married White women unhappy with their beta male husbands.

Instead, creator Sean Jablonski uses it to widen, and examine, a big crack in what he sees as the Potemkin village of modern (which is to say white, straight, upper-middle class) life.

The pilot outlines this village remarkably well, capturing the too-busy-to-be-fulfilled nature of a decades-long marriage and high-pressure careers without resorting to caricature. Neil is a financial advisor who has sacrificed intimacy with his wife and daughter for “success” only to find that handling other people’s money has become a bore while his wife, Grace (Stephanie Szostak), is the supportive spouse who has accepted what she cannot change.

Or maybe not. After Neil has his own I’m-mad-as-hell moment before ditching a business trip, he discovers Grace has been rebelling too — with another man. In one of the better “that was my WIFE” smack-downs, it is revealed that Grace is not having an affair, exactly; she has hired an escort, the refreshingly level-headed Simon (Blair Redford), who for reasons necessitated to get this show going, gives Neil his jacket complete with cellphone.

Roiling with anger, payback and curiosity, Neil begins answering the phone and then servicing Simon’s clients, only to discover (can it be true?) that he likes it. Not just the sex but the sense of adventure and personal power. (There is no point arguing here that empowered prostitutes exist almost entirely in the imagination of screenwriters.)

“Satisfaction” is not, however, a modern male version of “The Happy Hooker.” At its best, it’s a well-acted, surprisingly clear-eyed look at the inconsistent relationship between passion and enduring love, and the innovative ways in which people bend their own rules to accommodate their need for pleasure [Emphasis added].

And here is the reason why the gay redefinition of marriage is happening. Women want it. Its not “the Jews” (when Jews OWNED Hollywood this stuff was never allowed on screen). Owners don’t trash their properties.

Instead you have the showrunner from “Suits” and FX’s “Nip/Tuck” creating another show aimed at middle class women. Promising them they can have it all, exciting sex AND a husband who rakes in the money.

In short, women are powering the gay redefinition of marriage. Not because they are bad or evil.

BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCKERS.

This last point cannot be repeated enough. Women are: fools, suckers, marks, cons, gulls, victims, and easy money when they buy this stuff. They buy it because they are greedy: for sex not money. They want the sex.

And no one is honest with women. No one tells them, they will be pretty from age say, 15-25, with a residual attractiveness for another ten years to 35, and that’s it. Save a few Hollywood honies with extraordinary amounts of money, time, personal trainers, personal chefs, and plenty of makeup, photoshop, and plastic surgery. And that all the love they will get depends on who and how much sex they’ve had in years previous.

The honest, and ugly truth, is that women can only get love and keep it if they choose wisely young, and refrain from sleeping around with lots of guys. Failing to observe both rules is a disaster. A wrong choice? Yes women are attuned to that and stories featuring a wrong choice averted, for solid reasons, always sell well in Hollywood.

Refrain from sleeping around? When the short term sex payoff is so … exciting for women?

THAT is a message that no woman wants to hear. So doesn’t.

It is important that they hear it. A woman who sleeps around, fails to lock down the good man she might have gotten years earlier. And all that is left is the dregs, men considered “unmarriageable” because of bad habits, unattractiveness, worse personality, etc. Men she would have brushed aside years earlier now reject her. Worse from her point of view, any man she can attract will always value former girlfriends, lovers, etc. more than herself (she herself of course will do the same). The union such as it is will be very, very fragile.

Charles Murray compared the unions the upper class makes, in their early to mid thirties, as akin to corporate mergers. Such corporate mergers, being loveless, generally do not last. Think: Chrylser-Daimler, AOL-Time Warner, or your least favorite yuppie couple, Al and Tipper Gore. Despite being the inspiration for “Love Story.” [Not really, just another of Al’s pathetic lies to pump his fragile ego up since he’s done nothing in his life, really.]

Movies, books, TV shows that appeal to the lowest common denominator of women: greed for sex, sell. Just look at the moms camped out to watch the Fifty Shades of Bondage Grey demonstrating that for you. Women are starved for sex (with Alpha males). They cannot get enough of it, and believe any phony story, scam, dodge, or lie that they can.

Including the gay redefinition of marriage — that women can sleep around with hunky males and still have a husband who provides a good living.

Now isn’t that a whopper. Any man can spot the scam right there. No man worth actually having who makes a living will tolerate that. He’ll be gone and nuke the family immediately. And if that is marriage on the menu, or even at risk being offered, any worthwhile man who makes a decent living and provides, and is halfway sexy, will balk at marriage altogether and simply spread his seed or up his Game to hotter, sexier women. The only guy that deal sounds good for is a man otherwise a loser who makes decent money. But is so physically and personality unattractive that otherwise no woman would touch him. In other words, the dregs of male attractiveness.

A gay redefinition of marriage advantages the pump-dump sluts, who soak up far more male attention than they otherwise would (because Jane Next Door is no longer Wife material, and pump and dump strippers are easier and cheaper). In a quantity game, girls of “good” character who otherwise sleep around are ignored by both their peers who would otherwise marry them, and get out-competed by sluts with obvious slut markers: strippers with tattoos, etc.

Meanwhile the more ambitious and thoughtful of men who are Jane Next Door’s natural mates, will turn their attention to Game and much hotter women. If mass quantities of strippers and Charlie Sheen-esque porn goddesses are not their speed, then why would they waste time on Jane Next Door when they’ll be sharing her with Alpha males? Might as well pursue the Golden Hottie, they’ll still share her with other men (Alphas) but she’ll be much, much hotter.

If your girl cheats on you, wouldn’t you rather have a real hot girl than one just average?

And there is always porn. Many, many guys will simply self-medicate with porn. No fuss, no muss, no need to even leave the couch. There would probably be a good market for non-sex escorts pretending to be girlfriends, going on social stuff like events and so on. The more introverted, shyer, more intelligent guys (introversion and IQ are positively correlated) are likely to go this route, more than the Game-the-Ultra-Hottie (though a significant Feynmanian minority will Game that Hottie). These guys will be generally fairly high achievers, and critically possessed of higher IQ.

The disaster for the West is Jane Average will still have kids. Just not with the Feynmanian types (they’ll Game That Hottie) nor the High Alpha like the fantasy Christian Grey. Nor the shy higher IQ types going the porn collection and paid escort route (sexual or non-sexual). Nope. The father of Jane Average’s kids will be …
Kevin Federline.

Yeah. THAT GUY.

Now, Kevin Federline gets a lot of grief. But he’s done the remarkable: had two kids with actress Shar Johnson, two with Britney Spears (when she was still hot), and two with his current model/actress/beach volleyball player companion. That’s six kids. Who is winning the reproductive race again? It is not the high IQ herblings.

So within a generation or two, there will be no more smart White people left. At best, we will have Federline level IQs, high on tatted up charisma and aggression, low on every other quality needed to create wealth and security. Yes this includes Jews, who are as vulnerable to the con on Jewish women as other White people are to their women. What is the Jewish fertility in the US again? Dismal. The out-marriage rate? Again, dismal. Mr. Amy Chua, Jeb Rubenfeld, thought so little of Jewish women despite being a tenured Harvard Law Professor, that he married, Amy Chua. Mark Zuckerberg? Had to settle for a dumpy Asian girl who seems to be the only female on the planet who ever had sex with him. [Dog not barking? “I was Facebook Founder’s College Sweetheart — Read All About Our Wild Times in the Daily Mail.”]

Gay marriage norms are a sucker’s deal. Sure women love it, the idea that they can have a provider hubby and sexy Alphas, “Great Books For Men” [CH/Roissy commenter GBFM] idea of “Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks.” But that deal will find almost no buyers. Only the Omega dregs of men. Not even that Isla Vista crazy shooter would go for that deal.

And by embracing it, as women are sure to do (because they are suckers for this sex greed), women are going to end up:

Old.
Alone.
Unloved.
Easy Prey.
With no one to care for them at all.

The government funding their retirement when half of Central America and Mexico is moving here, Africa to come? Please. They’ll be easy and likely legally sanctioned prey at best.

Who is to blame? Women’s mothers. They are the ones who had the responsibility to speak the truth. To tell their daughters, “you won’t be hot forever.” To let them know they had to avoid the temptation of sex-greed, the hucksters, and that what works (for a while until they die old and alone) for gay men won’t work for them, no matter how “fabulous” their swishy ways seem.

It is this generation of mothers, the women Hillary! Clinton’s age and somewhat older and younger, who bear the burden. Women age 50-70. These are the ones who failed to warn their daughters, about reality. About getting old. About losing their looks. About being invisible to nearly all men, the way most men were invisible to them when they were young and hot.

And its easy to understand why. They themselves fell for it. And so for lack of virtue among women, Western society fell.

There have always been gays. They’ve been around forever. There have always been utopian feminists intent on destroying the family. Mary Wollstonecroft (mother of Mary Shelley the Frankenstein author, yes they had the same name feminist like that), Feminist Zero, lived in the late Eighteenth Century. Her protege, that most Christian of Poets (read his epic poem Jerusalem) William Blake, Feminist One, lived from that period to the early Nineteenth Century. Both wanted to abolish marriage and replace it with transient sexual couplings.

No one listened to them. Wollstonecroft’s daughter married Shelley at age 17, pregnant with his child (being an aristocrat she could have born it out of wedlock, standards for the aristocrats were different even or especially then — in Jane Austen’s day it was common to step over the sleeping form of a twelve year old girl prostitute in London in the early morning hours and the aristocracy was considered totally debauched).

Marriage went on as before. A reform Queen stiffened middle class morality against the old Aristocratic debauchery.

In this country, the Mormons with their polygamy were driven out of Upper New York State, then Illinois, and into Utah where only the Civil War interfered with the US Army’s plan to invade Utah and wipe them out. Civil society abhorred them, Mark Twain wrote of them negatively and extensively and Arthur Conan Doyle made polygamous Mormons the villains in his first Sherlock Holmes story (“Study in Scarlett”) and another.

Radical Jews and non-Jews, and Communists, and Anarchists, and Nihilists, from the late 1880’s onward, offered a completely non-bourgeois way of living, of fleeting sex and much passion and violence. The Baader-Meinhof gang was nothing new. Sergey Nechayev (whose fictional memoirs underpin the plot in Eric Ambler’s last novel “the Care of Time”) did much the same in the 1870s and 1880s. Sex, violence, and promiscuity were on order from men like Nechayev a full ninety years before Ulrike Meinhoff and Andreas Baader copied them.

And marriage went on as before.

Decadent flappers, and Jazz, and booze, and gangsters, and breaking the color barrier were found a plenty in the 1920’s. Yet to read the popular literature from the time, say Agatha Christie or Dashiell Hammett, two writers opposite in temperament, audience, style, and beliefs, well marriage in their stories and in society went on as before.

No one was interested in living a chaotic life of endless sex and new romance and all that. A calm, settled, domestic life was what was wanted, and offered. Even the two fisted Continental Op in “the Scorched Face” acts to preserve his semi-pal’s marriage. Not because he has any great love for the guy. But because it was the right thing to do. Meanwhile Agatha Christie had two middle class morality enforcers: the fussy Belgian police inspector, Hercule Poirot, and the aging aunt Miss Marple.

The 1950’s were an era of fervor and upheaval. The atomic bomb threatened to end all of humanity. Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis astonished audiences and scandalized the nation. Hot rods were everywhere, giving every man and woman freedom. There was even more race mixing, an overt Civil Rights Movement, taboos being broken by beatniks, and sex sex sex on offer from Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, and many others.

Marriage went on as before.

The 1960’s featured bra burning, radical feminists rediscovering stuff from the 70’s. The 1770’s. Angry militant Blacks, Hispanics, and Feminists cowed White male authority, and created surrender in the campuses, in the boardroom, in politics, and in Hollywood. But watch the TV from that era. Jeannie did not dream of doing a football team of Alphas, but landing JR Ewing in marriage. Samantha, powerful witch, wanted nothing more than to settle down with the nice guy she married (even if he lacked magical power). Agent 99 might constantly bail out Maxwell Smart, but she did not want to get all hump on Doc from the Love Boat.

And marriage went on as before.

The same can be said for the 1970s, and the 1980’s. You had all sorts of social upheavals, and you get guys like the late and lamented John Hughes making love poems to the middle class family. As late as the late 1980’s you had “Planes Trains and Automobiles.”

While I cannot prove it, I strongly suspect that traditional wisdom of the inevitability of aging, the inability to live like a gay man happily for the overwhelming amount of women, continued to be handed down from mother to daughter, through the 1980’s.

And then it stopped.

And it was not the Frankfurt School, nor “the Jews,” nor Anarchists, feminists, or the other radicals because they’ve been around since the 1770s that undid America. It was the failure of mothers to tell their daughters in the very late 1980s (lag effect) about the reality of sex and love, and aging, that left American (and other Western women) vulnerable to the big con. And so it began.If you figure this meant the mother of 16 year olds at 1988, average age 46 to 38- then, that made the mothers born in 1942, to 1950, coming of age from between 1962 to 1970, the heart of the revolution in human affairs.

And here is the lesson. Either that generation’s mothers were unwilling to take on the nonsense peddled unlike previous generations, preferring to be their daughters friends, or the effect of the media bombardment was too effective given the power of Television and Movies over books and newspapers to move people, so that their daughters internalized a lie.

That they could be happy gobbling up all the sex they could handle.

If I had to choose, I would say the unique in history power of movies and TV reaching its zenith in the 1960s likely over-rode the common sense of women’s mothers telling them, no they won’t be fabulous and wanted at age forty nor at age 35 either. Unlike the women on TV. And no, flitting about from guy to guy is not a life of fun, but a guarantee in the future of loneliness and poverty and isolation.

Movies and TV are uniquely powerful, unlike books or magazines or newspapers, they convey emotion and setting in a way that no other medium can. There were plenty of flapper glamorizing movies in the 1920’s, where promiscuity and the like were celebrated (until the Fatty Arbuckle incident). But they were silent movies in black and white. It may be that color TV and movies, the advancement in technology, was what tipped the balance, disastrously.

At any rate, gay marriage norms are here to stay in the West. Because women want the con. Act accordingly. I could not imagine “Satisfaction” being aired in the 1980’s. Maybe the 1990s. But no earlier.

13 Responses to USA Network’s Satisfaction and the Gay Redefinition of Marriage

I’ve always thought that Sex and the City was the most damaging show of all time because of exactly what you talked about. It told women you can live a fabulously gay lifestyle well into your 40s, and beyond. I remember watching it with my GF at the time and pointing out the absurd lies. She was smart and got it, but still she couldn’t miss an episode. Maybe the craziest thing of all was the main rich handsome guy leaving his model younger wife for Sarah Jessica Parker. Yeah effing right; SJP could get some pumps from him on the side but that’s it. I’m sure many women today think that’s the greatest love story of all time.

But it looks like S&C might be losing its damaging show crown. I get more pessimistic every year. We are in sharp decline while the 3rd world is exploding and they want to move into the nice countries, and the Left and the money and most politicians on the Right tell us: “they’ll be just like us in no time! Look at the Irish!” There’s simply no way that dark times aren’t coming.

Boomers. We really have destroyed everything we touched. Popular culture, education, adulthood, politics, marriage and family life … next up, Social Security and Healthcare.
Talkin’ ’bout my g-g-g-generation …

My two cents: mass sexual revolution was signaled by James Bond movies and the Beatles. And the pill. James Bond signaled that socially dominant men accepted sexually active women (Pussy (Galore in Goldfinger) and the Beatles popularized bohemian subversion. The Beatles caused mass hysteria in women unlike Elvis who held a more sedate and establishment credo.

John Lennon I believe went to art school as did many other British band types at that time. They would have studied surrealism and Dada which relied heavily on dreams, art is whatever you say it is, randomness, subjectivity, and rejection of the western culture canon. Their heroes would have been on the cover of the Sargent Pepper album.

The change in status of fraternity and sorority types was unbelievably fast and crushing. A couple of years, say, ’67 to ’69 (Woodstock summer of ’69) in coastal schools. From Big Man on Campus (see The Graduate’s Katherine Ross’ frat boyfriend) to beer-drinking neanderthals. People not old enough to have lived through it cannot begin to comprehend the changes wrought in the 60s. To this very day modernists like Obama play on these social insecurities. The 80s women became financially independent but the sexual revolution of the 60s had already solidified feminism.

Oh, and don’t forget Viet Nam. Probably the stupidest war in history. And the first to be televised. Body counts at 6pm. It was like an injection of pure speed for modernism. During one march alone in Washington, DC, in either ’69 or ’70 the police arrested 10,000 student demonstrators and held them in RFKstadium. SDS by the way wrote the Port Huron Statement in ’62. Most SDS members were betas like Bill Ayers but were getting laid like champs. Women saw an opening and rewarded the New Men as the old order collapsed.

As far as damaging TV shows, let me toss another one out: Friends and it’s various clones. It popularized the idea of a “family” of young-single-people-in-the-city as a superior substitute of the same old boring nuclear and extended blood family. Of course, these gangs of friends as a substitute family have a life span of a Vegas marriage.

I have not seen ‘Satisfaction’ but I did see the pilot episode of ‘Marriage.’ It’s a “comedy” on FX and the first episode had a horny husband and a wife who flippantly tells him to go get his needs satisfied somewhere else. So he attempts to. It’s not clear if she was joking or serious but seems very similar to what you were talking about.

As far as damaging TV shows, let me toss another one out: Friends and it’s various clones. It popularized the idea of a “family” of young-single-people-in-the-city as a superior substitute of the same old boring nuclear and extended blood family. Of course, these gangs of friends as a substitute family have a life span of a Vegas marriage.
—————————————————————————–
The redefinition of marriage is part of the political program of feminism. Fromhttp://www.dadsnow.org/essay/garbgen.htm

“In the coming matriarchy,” continue Nickles and Ashcraft,

families will be thought of as sets of divers individuals rather than homogeneous social clusters, and the definition of “family” will broaden to include many kinds of living arrangements, as is happening now without widespread social recognition. We may see the advent of the rotational family, in which there is no single, stable cast of characters for a lifetime, but rather a series of individuals–male and female–who will be added to or phased out of a continually reconstituted family unit as the needs, interests, and emotional commitments of the couple, individual, or group dictate. The first five years of a woman’s adult life may be spent living with male and female roommates; the next five years with a male mate; the next five with a husband and a child; the next three with two female friends, and so on. This pattern is already emerging, but when it occurs on a large scale, we will see the rotational family replacing the nuclear family as the status quo.18

The family pattern is called “rotational,” but it does its rotating around the fixed figure of Mom, who remains at its center while males make their entrances, do their orbiting, and make their exits.

It is the pattern of the Hopi Indians], of whom Fred Eggan gives the following description:

The central core or axis of the household is composed of a line of women–a segment of a lineage. All the members of the segment, male and female, are born in the household and consider it their home, but only the women normally reside there after marriage. The men of the lineage leave at marriage to reside in the households of their wives, returning to their natal home on various ritual and ceremonial occasions, or in case of separation or divorce, which is frequent. Into the household in turn come other men through marriage….The household revolves about a central and continuing core of women; the men are peripheral with divided residences and loyalties.[19

A. I. ]Richards calls this pattern the “institution of the visiting husband or the visiting brother,” and remarks that the pattern is characterized by unstable marriages: “A man who cannot stand the situation in his wife’s village leaves and goes elsewhere. This might be described as the solution of the detachable husband.”[20

It is the pattern of the ghettos, where illegitima]cy now exceeds 50 percent and where men and boys grow increasingly roleless and violent–and where women live in poverty and complain of their insufficient subsidization.

It is the pattern of increasing numbers of households in the larger society. According to the Washington-based National Center for Policy Alternatives, 40 percent of girls in school today will be heads of households.[21 “Ten percent of the nation’s families are headed only by a woman,” writes Joreen, “but 40 percent of the families classified as poor have female heads.”22 Implying, naturally, that society should do more to help these poor Moms and their kids.

The matriarchal days of the Stone Age] are thus nostalgically described by feminist Marilyn French:

From 3.5 million years ago to about l0,000 years ago, was a peaceful period, when “marriage” was informal, casual…. Yes, there was a garden and in it we gathered fruits and vegetables and sang to the moon and played and worked together and watched the children grow. For the most part life was good, and we made art and rituals celebrating our participation in the glorious spectacle and process of life within nature.[23

Referring to those same happy days, feminist Evelyn R]eed writes,

A woman did not need a husband as a means of support; she was herself economically independent as a producing member of the community. This gave women, like men, the freedom to follow their personal inclinations in sex relations. A woman had the option of remaining for life with one husband, but she was not under any legal, moral or economic compulsion to do so.

This freedom was destroyed with the advent of class society, private property and monogamous marriage.

On p.86 of the book titled “The Man Who Would be Queen” by J. Michael Bailey says,
“By heterosexual standards gay men are sexually promiscuous. Although this was well known to those who paid attention, it became clear to everyone during the AIDS epidemic. In a 1981 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AIDS patients with an average age of 35 years reported an average of 60 sex partners per year, or approximately 1,000 lifetime partners.”

America, welcome to the brave new world of the Monkeyfuk Club, where you don’t even know what your last sex partner looked like.

Thanks for putting into words my fears for my four 20something nieces who are all following this path! My sister (liberal boomer) wants to be friends with her two daughters instead of an uncool mom and my brother and his two daughters have the same kind of mom; at least until she left my 54 yr old engineer brother last year to pickup guys in bars. Her favorite shows to watch with her girls are Girls and all the Housewife of … shows. They all voted twice for Obummer and all have rejected our Catholic religion. It’s sad, like watching a slow motion train wreck and not being able to stop it.

families will be thought of as sets of divers individuals rather than homogeneous social clusters, and the definition of “family” will broaden to include many kinds of living arrangements, as is happening now without widespread social recognition. We may see the advent of the rotational family, in which there is no single, stable cast of characters for a lifetime, but rather a series of individuals–male and female–who will be added to or phased out of a continually reconstituted family unit as the needs, interests, and emotional commitments of the couple, individual, or group dictate. The first five years of a woman’s adult life may be spent living with male and female roommates; the next five years with a male mate; the next five with a husband and a child; the next three with two female friends, and so on. This pattern is already emerging, but when it occurs on a large scale, we will see the rotational family replacing the nuclear family as the status quo.18

The family pattern is called “rotational,” but it does its rotating around the fixed figure of Mom, who remains at its center while males make their entrances, do their orbiting, and make their exits.

It is the pattern of the Hopi Indians], of whom Fred Eggan gives the following description:

The central core or axis of the household is composed of a line of women–a segment of a lineage. All the members of the segment, male and female, are born in the household and consider it their home, but only the women normally reside there after marriage. The men of the lineage leave at marriage to reside in the households of their wives, returning to their natal home on various ritual and ceremonial occasions, or in case of separation or divorce, which is frequent. Into the household in turn come other men through marriage….The household revolves about a central and continuing core of women; the men are peripheral with divided residences and loyalties.[19

A. I. ]Richards calls this pattern the “institution of the visiting husband or the visiting brother,” and remarks that the pattern is characterized by unstable marriages: “A man who cannot stand the situation in his wife’s village leaves and goes elsewhere. This might be described as the solution of the detachable husband.”[20

It is the pattern of the ghettos, where illegitima]cy now exceeds 50 percent and where men and boys grow increasingly roleless and violent–and where women live in poverty and complain of their insufficient subsidization.

It is the pattern of increasing numbers of households in the larger society. According to the Washington-based National Center for Policy Alternatives, 40 percent of girls in school today will be heads of households.[21 “Ten percent of the nation’s families are headed only by a woman,” writes Joreen, “but 40 percent of the families classified as poor have female heads.”22 Implying, naturally, that society should do more to help these poor Moms and their kids.

The matriarchal days of the Stone Age] are thus nostalgically described by feminist Marilyn French:

From 3.5 million years ago to about l0,000 years ago, was a peaceful period, when “marriage” was informal, casual…. Yes, there was a garden and in it we gathered fruits and vegetables and sang to the moon and played and worked together and watched the children grow. For the most part life was good, and we made art and rituals celebrating our participation in the glorious spectacle and process of life within nature.[23

Referring to those same happy days, feminist Evelyn R]eed writes,

A woman did not need a husband as a means of support; she was herself economically independent as a producing member of the community. This gave women, like men, the freedom to follow their personal inclinations in sex relations. A woman had the option of remaining for life with one husband, but she was not under any legal, moral or economic compulsion to do so.

This freedom was destroyed with the advent of class society, private property and monogamous marriage.

Male prostitutes primarily service other men, so this show about men banging milfs is also, partly, a male fantasy.*

If the husband has the balls to be a pro his wife would still love him.

The daughter’s annoying.

*The French film Complices was a better, more realistic, look at what it means to be a gigolo. Bonus, the cops investigating the main character’s death (not a spoiler) are single, childless, 40-somethings who hate how their lives have turned out: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/accomplices-2010